Other Considerations
One of the final uses of hair is its use in toxicology. Hair remains after the flesh has disintegrated. Unless it is burn or treated with acid or alkali hair with remain as evidence long after most other evidence has disappeared.
One of the most famous cases of poisoning may have been solved by modern technology and hair. Napoleon Bonaparte was the emperor of France. He waged war on most of Europe during his reign. In the end he was captured and exile to a small island in 1821. Napoleon Bonaparte was and is famous for the paintings done of him showing him with his hand inserted into his shirt covering his stomach. This habit of putting his hand over his stomach led to the belief that he may have had stomach cancer. His father had died of stomach cancer many years before. (Owen, 2000) (Innes, 2000).
Before he died he wrote that he believed he was being poisoned by his English captors. When he died his valet kept a lock of his hair. The lock of hair survived and with the advent of new technology was tested using neutron activation analysis. The results showed that the emperor had been subjected to heavy dosed of arsenic. The doses had been administered over a period of four months (Innes, 2000). It is impossible to say who poisoned Napoleon Bonaparte but it is now known he was poisoned.
Conclusion
Hair can provide a myriad of information. None of this information can be used as solid evidence on its own. Hair is best used to back up other forms of evidence. As I have said earlier it is all a matter of probabilities. The chances of a single hair from a victim being found on a suspect might be 1/800 that it got there accidentally. If, however, hair from the suspect is also found on the victim the probability of an accidental transfer increases to 1/640,000. Hair should be used as a support to other evidence.
References
1. Block, Eugene. Science vs Crime: The Evolution of the Police Lab. (1979). Cragmont Publications. San Francisco, California.
2. Bisbing, Richard E., (2001) Finding Trace Evidence. in Mute Witnesses: Trace Evidence Analysis. Houck, Max., (ed.) Academic Press, San Diego, California
3. Crocker, James E., (1999) Trace Evidence. in Forensic Evidence in Canada(2nd ed.) Chayko, G. M. & Gulliver E. D. (eds.) Canadian Law Books Inc., Aurora, ON.
4. Fernelli, Roxana,. (2002) Silent Witness: How Forensic Anthropology is used to solve the world’s toughest crimes. Firefly books Inc., U.S.A.
5. Greenshields, Malcolm, R. & Scheurman, Gordon D., (2001) The Crime Scene: Criminalistics, Science and Common Sense. Pearson Education Canada Inc.,Toronto.
6. Innes, Brian., (2000) Bodies of Evidence. Amber Books. London, England.
7. Kubic, Thomas A. & Petraco Nicholas.(2003) Microanalysis and Examination of Trace Evidence in Forensic Science: An Introduction Scientific Investigative Techniques. J.H. Stuart & J. Nordby (eds). CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton , Florida
8. Lane, Brian. (1992) The Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. Headline Book Publishing Inc., London, England.
9. Nickell, J. & Fischer John F., (1999) Crime Science: Methods of Forensic Detection. University of Kentucky Press. Lexington, Kentucky.
10. Owen, David (2000) Hidden Evidence: Forty True Crimes and how Forensic science solved them. Firefly Books Inc., Buffalo, N.Y.
11. Saferstein, Richard. (2004) Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science. (8th ed.) Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey